WHAT DO CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SAY?
Most climate scientists point to increasing evidence that climate change is affecting life on Earth. The 10 key planet-wide indicators of a warming climate as identified in July by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are:
— higher sea surface temperatures
Global sea surface temperatures are below average.
— higher sea levels
Yep, sea level has been getting higher for 15,000 years.
— less sea ice
Total sea ice area has scarcely changed
— less snow cover
2010 had the largest North American winter snow cover on record.
If you have to make up information to get your point across, your point is worthless.
More six more to go!
More hurricanes…
Not!
Higher mid Troposheric/mid latitude temperatures…………..
Not!
“Global Sea Surface Temperatures are below average.”
Which ‘average’? Surely you don’t mean the long term average or trend?
“Yep, sea level has been getting higher for 15,000 years.”
But at an increased rate since the industrial revolution.
“Total sea ice area has scarcely changed”
It isn’t talking about area of ice. There is less sea ice, it is below the long term average by over one standard deviation.
“2010 had the largest North American winter snow cover on record.”
So you can only disprove the climate change indicators by believing that they only refer to the US in winter.
It appears that Official Climate Misinformation has a lot of catching up to do with Un-Offical Climate Misinformation.
MikeA says:
“More six more to go!”
Indeed. Can we assume that they will be equally distorted to give a misleading view?
Which ‘average’? Surely you don’t mean the long term average or trend?
Which average are you using?
But at an increased rate since the industrial revolution.
And your source is?
It isn’t talking about area of ice. There is less sea ice, it is below the long term average by over one standard deviation.
Source again.
So you can only disprove the climate change indicators by believing that they only refer to the US in winter.
And your reason for the rebuttal is the snow cover in the tropics? Seems to me we heard a lot about record snow cover in most of the northern hemisphere during last winter.
Pot meet kettle.
Depending on a person’s outlook, long term average can be anything from 30 to thousands of years. Those afflicted with mental myopia will pick the shorter time period as long term.
We do not have enough “accurate” information to claim a significant change outside historical patterns since 8000 years ago. Of course with proper selection you can provide proof of any condition you want.
Sea level change is within long term conditions observed over the last 10 thousand years. 150 years is to short of a period to have any significance.
Sea surface temperatures are WAGs at best but there are proxies that track fairly well with what has been observed in certain regions that show over 10 thousand years we would now be below the average sea surface temperature. If you want to use 30 to 100 years for your base reference period use the disclaimer that it is based on a properly selected period that confirms to your position.
Sea ice is another measurement that has long term variability that varies with regional conditions. It is within natural variations and above the average for the last 10 thousand years.
Lazarus you have us with your logic because if we look at conditions during the period from 80k to 15 k before present you are right about every thing you say. That 65 thousand year period was definitely colder and had more ice with lower sea levels.
The globe has not yet recovered from the period named LIA that was colder than the MWP. Currently the globe is below or equal to the temperatures experienced for 500 years between 700 and 1200 AD and we have only experienced those temperatures for less than 100 years, if it was that long.
I see more smoke and mirrors being pushed around in the house of cards built on sand!
There is a lot of opinions by “scientists” . Even professional opinions. One does doing a science degree (and a doctorate) make you a genius with incredible insight. No, a science degree should a head start on scientifically derived knowledge so you don’t reinvent the wheel. It should also give you the tools, logic and understanding of the scientific method to apply in a particular field (though it has wider applicability). Mine had no reference to the scientific method- we did more science in junior high school.
Two, so what does it mean when the president of National Academy of Science say most likely human cause global warming- almost nothing but its a vague statement by a highly political (I don’t mean Democratic/Republican rather balancing the egoes of “scientists”) organisation. He doesn’t want to say anything really because he knows there is no solid science (scientific method to the particular problem- which would be hideously difficult to get a meaningful result on hypothesis derived from AGW), but he knows a lot of scientist’s fat grants from the Climate Department depend on him being supportive. There has been a lot of politician signed pages or statements which are meaningless.
Three, the proven science is CO2 (equivalent) should have some effect on temperatures but not it does that is uncertain. There are about 22 climates (+subclimatic regional effects) in the world all with their different temperature profiles. There is some evidence for there being global warming but no rigorous scientific study that proves a meaningful hypothesis about global warming- a lot of mathematical studies but maths isn’t science.
Its a chaotic system- therefore you need to understand a great deal to have any hope of making meaningful predictions (if it was deterministic much less would have to be understood) . There are complex interactions occuring the whole climatesphere which are very poorly understood- they know they are there but numbers for them which are intensively testable and reliable throughly elude the scientific establishment.
If we only followed the scientific/engineering establishment, almost no progress would have occurred. Most major advances involved people studying areas way outside of accepted thinking. Louis Pasteur was not a scientist (according to climate scientists) because microbiology as a field didn’t exist at that time so they should have ignored him. If we limited thinking in any field to “professionals” we would be unable to do anything- we couldn’t cook, maintain a car.